The court also protected the possession and enjoyment of the family home in Kapashera, Delhi, for Anastasia and her mother, as outlined in the will. In their suit, the mother-daughter duo claimed that Vikramjit and Arjun were obstructing the execution of PRS Oberoi’s will, dated October 25, 2021. Under this will, the shares of PRS Oberoi were to be divided between his two daughters, Natasha and Anastasia, with Anastasia’s share allocated through a trust of which she was the beneficiary.

Counsel for Vikramjit and Arjun contended that there was a "serious challenge" to the validity of the existing will, citing another will from 1992. Justice Navin Chawla stated in the interim order that the plaintiffs had established a "good prima facie case" and would suffer "grave irreparable harm" if the shares and properties in question were alienated while the case was pending and before the defendants had a chance to respond.

The court ordered that the interests of justice and the plaintiffs would be protected by restraining the defendants from transferring or transmitting any shares held by PRS Oberoi in EIH Limited and related companies. It also restrained the defendants from interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the land and building located in Kapashera by Anastasia and her mother.

The counsel for Vikramjit and Arjun argued that the 2021 will did not accurately reflect the intentions of PRS Oberoi and his father. They claimed that, based on a settlement between PRS Oberoi and his father, the shares were held in trust for Vikramjit and Arjun, supported by a will executed in 1992. Additionally, they noted that the Articles of Association of the companies imposed restrictions on transferring shares to a trust without first offering them to existing shareholders. The court indicated that there was sufficient evidence from the plaintiffs to suggest the reliability of the 2021 will, with further determinations to be made once the defendants submitted their response.